![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (18)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleCooper spoke by telephone with the Times-Gazette on Tuesday afternoon from her office in Nashville.
In hopes of helping people quit, the state has established a free "Tennessee Tobacco QuitLine" which gives smokers their own individual coach. A smoker can call as often as necessary and be re-connected to the same counselor each time. The state will also send out a free "quit kit" to those who call the QuitLine. The number is (800) QUIT-NOW, which is (800) 784-8669 (some phones don't have "Q" listed under 7, however).
Without a big publicity campaign, the QuitLine has already drawn thousands of callers, said Cooper. The state plans a marketing push in the coming weeks and expects many more will call then.
"We'd like to see the QuitLine over-used," said Cooper.
The new law which takes effect Monday bans smoking in all enclosed public places, with a few very specific exceptions. The ban applies to many different situations; not only restaurants, hotels, motels and health care facilities, but also restrooms, lobbies, apartment building corridors and common areas, retail stores and educational facilities.
Individuals who smoke in a non-smoking area face a $50 fine. Business owners who fail to enforce the rules can face a warning on first offense, a $100 fine on second offense and a $500 fine on third and later offenses.
Cooper said the health department feels good about reception to the ban so far.
"I think it is being very well received," she said. "We want to set people up to succeed with this."
She said the idea is not for the state to become the "smoking police" but for non-smokers to be protected from second-hand smoke.
"This is really a step in the right direction for improving the health of Tennessee," she said. The state ranks high on lists of health-related problems caused by problem behaviors like smoking.
As more people become used to the ban, and as smoking decreases, the ban "will become self-policing," said Cooper.
Cooper said that the ban makes this "a great time" for people to try to quit smoking, as the ban forces them to change habits and gathering places. She said that one-on-one counseling like that provided by the QuitLine works hand-in-hand with medical treatments like nicotine replacement gums or patches. She said one-on-one coaching programs have been shown to be quite effective.
"We're really excited," said Cooper.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
The party is almost over folks!
Our country is being taken from us a piece at a time and it is not in the plan to stop doing it. We better wake up , or resign ourselves to being led down the road in a herd to whatever they decide what our future holds.
Flyncarpet,
How can you relate non-smoking to taking away our country {one} piece at a time.The "they are taking the country apart" has no relevance to smoking and non-smoking. If you posted that comment on a Eminent domain article or story I would agree. But to think it applies to non-smoking in public places is the same then I am a little confused? Please explain.
This is so ridiculous - We are turning into a communistic country -
It looks like everyone is about to have a stroke over the new no smoking law...Im sure it is the smokers that are upset. Us nonsmokers are thrilled over this law. ‹(*¿*)›
It looks like everyone is about to have a stroke over the new no smoking law...Im sure it is the smokers that are upset. Us nonsmokers are thrilled over this law. ‹(*¿*)›
I haven't smoked in 3 years, (got tired of paying the rediculous tax)but for those that want to, more power to you. Sure its a small thing to ban smoking, but small things compound and become big things. When no one smokes, how do they generate all that revenue that political critters absolutely love. And some day little Sally will come home and say "Mommy, my teacher wants me to tell on you and daddy for smoking." But a few more years and pot will be allowed and they can tax the fool out of that.
Since people will smoke less the tax on smoking is going to decrease. I hope the Gov decides to tax all fat foods and all fast food restraunts next. Might not be a bad ideal to have a national weigh in day and tax people who have gained over 10 pounds a year! I believe heart disease caused from obesiety will be the next thing our wonderful goverment should regulate. After all we aren't smart enough to protect ourselves!
There were already rules in place as to "smoking" and "non smoking" area. I haven't smoked in years; However, I don't believe it is the government right to infringe upon the smoker.
Pot will NEVER be legalized. There is to much of a revenue with it being illegal! Bondsmen, Attorney fees, fines, judges and jail. Just another part of the payroll.
I agree with all except AmericanWoman,
what rights will they take next. You can legally go in a bar get drunk, but don't smoke in that bar, its illegal. If you own the business, you should decide who does what in your place.
I have never heard of a 'true' smoker quit because of smoking bans.
Diversion tactic?? you betcha.
What this law means is..it will be against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property.
Is this the American way?
Prohibition..makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.. A prohibition law stikes a blow at the very principles upon which our govenment was founded.
--Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)
Desire versus rights
When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it makes sense to protect and defend private individuals' rights to their property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then we should make a clear distinction between private property and public property.
Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them. Do they not recognize the importance of respecting people's right to control their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?
The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the rights of private citizens. When one person's desires are allowed to trump another person's rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
An alternative to smoking bans
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels
of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and
filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern
ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious
contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Smoking bans are the real threat
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation from
sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat
of second-hand smoke.
The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been
spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- the
cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about
the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or
should they seize the power of government and force people to make the
"right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
I don't know about bars in Canada, but the bars in and around Middle Tennessee have not seen clean air since they were built. Most of them are in old buildings or warehouse built in the late 60's. Not to mention the local "dives" who are little more than a shack. Study or no study when you walk in to a room and you can cut the smoke in the air with a knife it can't be good for your lungs.
Mr. Thomas in Canada some things you say are true and some things you say are your very biased opinion. I smoked for twenty years and was always courteous to non-smokers. The problem for me personally are the smokers who show total dis-regard for others. I think these people are the ones who have prompted this action.
It is very naive to think that secondhand smoke poses on health concerns. There are many people in this country who are simply allergic to the smoke. It causes sore throat and eye irritation. I don't see why we as non-smokers should have to deal with certain peoples total disregard for common courtesy so you can enjoy you post-meal puff. Sure, most businesses have isolated the smoking areas and that was definitely a step in the right direction. The fact is simply seating someone over one table from another and telling them its okay to smoke here doesn't always do the trick.
If a compromise could be met where the non-smoking area's air could be monitored during peak hours to insure minimal exposure to smoke, I'd be all for it. I don't see that as a viable option since most businesses aren't going to pay to have this type of equipment installed.
In short, when the "rights" of some are taken away to prevent the harm to others, I don't view it as an intrusion at all. If it does anything to ease the financial burden put on us middle class non-smokers who bare the brunt of higher insurance premimums to cover the health issues related to smoking then I'm all for it. You being in Canada with your government funded Health Care system don't see that side of the issue!
Our Government does not want you to stop buying cigarettes, they only want you to stop smoking them.
If they were truly concerned about your health issue then they would ban cigarette sales. But that is not going to happen because they would lose too much money in taxes and the economy would fall because of all the job losses.
This ban on smoking is just one more way for them to control your life and raise taxes.. Money is all they care about..they could care less if you have lung cancer…or if your 200 lbs over weight..or if you are alcohol dependant.
No curried rice eater has ever forced me to eat curried rice nor forced me to be exposed to it. I respect that.
I totally hate curried rice.
The very smell of it makes me ill, I cannot breath in it's exposure presence, so, I don't eat it, and, I don't go anywhere curried rice is served. There are restaurants and bars that serve curried rice, and other places that do not serve it. I am free to choose which place I will go in to, so I go in to the places that do not serve curried rice, and curried rice eaters who enjoy curried rice go to places that do serve curried rice. IF I ever chose to go in to a place that serves curried rice, that too would be my choice. That is how a Freedom of Choice Marketplace Democracy works.
I do whatever can be rationally done to avoid exposure to curried rice.
I know there is so little risk of my dying from exposure to curried rice gases, that the risk is so miniscule that it is Statistically Insignificant, butt,
I hate curried rice so much I might even ban it, eradicate it,
if, I had the right to do so.
I hate curried rice - butt - I have no right to ban nor eradicate curried rice.
I hate curried rice - butt - I have no right to hate all curried rice eaters.
My hatred of curried rice does Not make me hate those human beings who do enjoy it, who derive pleasure from eating it. I do Not think that all curried rice eaters are evil sub-humans.
Hatred of all curried rice eaters would be irrational, or at least totally wrong. It would be a form of bigoted racism.
The same is true about Tobacco Smoking - in a real democracy.
"Cooper said that the ban makes this "a great time" for people to try to quit smoking, as the ban !!!!FORCES!!!! them to change habits and gathering places. She said that one-on-one counseling like that provided by the QuitLine works hand-in-hand with medical treatments like nicotine replacement gums or patches. She said one-on-one coaching programs have been shown to be quite effective.
"!!!!We're really excited!!!!," said Cooper."
THEY ARE REALLY EXCITED TO FORCE YOU TO DO SOMETHING IN A "FREE" COUNTRY!! THIS IS COMPLETE CRAP!! I am 20 years old and i smoke.... i choose to.... the only place i can go to relax and be with friends now bans anyone under 21... it is complete bull sh@$
If anyone knows of a petition against this law please let me know.... anyone who is for this law please go buy some listerine patches and stick them in your eyes...